or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC issues US import ban on older iPhones and iPads for infringement of Samsung patents [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC issues US import ban on older iPhones and iPads for infringement of Samsung patents [u] - Page 2

post #41 of 166

What I don't understand is how " Samsung's U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 for "Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system," " applies to GSM phones.

post #42 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Meh. Apple files an appeal and by the time the appeal gets heard the last remaining devices will no longer be sold anyway.

See Samsung? Apple can play this "tie things up in court until they don't matter" game as well.

Like Big Worm said in Friday it's the "principalities". 1smoking.gif
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #43 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I'll do you one better. I'll never purchase or use another Samsung product in my life. Nor will my children. Nor theirs. Nor theirs. Hopefully by the time I'm bouncing my great grandchildren on my knee, Samsung will have been bankrupted and its executives dragged into the street.
With absolutely no punishment for them, of course.

How about all the Samsung products within Apple devices? This will amount to nothing considering there's a 60 review period plus appeals.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

This is total bull! Apple is using Qualcomm product which provides the wireless technology. So the onus is on them. And what I understand that are clear with that. This is no difference than what they are doing in e-book situation. In past two weeks the Government is getting after Apple from every direction and they haven't done anything illegal. They are destroying a gem of the company that this country has!

Did you read the article first?

post #45 of 166
Note that the ITC also deemed a cease and desist order appropriate too. That means any new stock already in the US could not be sold. Practically of course the economic harm to Apple will be nil. Two years ago when it was filed would have been different.

The biggest news at the end of the day was the ITC affirming the availability of injunctions for SEP infringement. That really surprised me. Coming on the heel of patent reform comments made by the White House today I think this will garner one of the rare Presidential vetos.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 166
The whole thing begs some questions:
1. If it's all cut and clear, how come the previous judge decision did not find any infringement?
2. Is an invitation for Morola to reopen their case?
3. Is it time to fire some Apple lawyers? Losing several high profile cases in Europe and now this?
4. And where the heck is 1.5 bln dollars?
post #47 of 166
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post
4. And where the heck is 1.5 bln dollars?

 

I like how people keep creeping the number up. Maybe it will eventually hit the amount they should have been fined.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #48 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Note that the ITC also deemed a cease and desist order appropriate too. That means any new stock already in the US could not be sold. Practically of course the economic harm to Apple will be nil. Two years ago when it was filed would have been different.

The biggest news at the end of the day was the ITC affirming the availability of injunctions for SEP infringement. That really surprised me. Coming on the heel of patent reform comments made by the White House today I think this will garner one of the rare Presidential vetos.

Not sure about the economic harm being nil. First, it's gonna spook a lot of investors. Second, it's really embarrassing to get such a kick right before the upcoming WWDC.
post #49 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by VirgaHyatt View Post

What I don't understand is how " Samsung's U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 for "Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system," " applies to GSM phones.

 

GSM phones use a second radio .. a CDMA one... for 3G.  You might know it as UMTS-3G / WCDMA.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The biggest news at the end of the day was the ITC affirming the availability of injunctions for SEP infringement. That really surprised me. Coming on the heel of patent reform comments made by the White House today I think this will garner one of the rare Presidential vetos.

 

No surprise here.  I've been repeating in my posts for months that the ITC's sole power is injunctions, and they want to keep that power.   However, this ban doesn't have a big impact, so it's also politically safe.

 

The last major time the ITC did this with phones was in 2007 when they banned CDMA devices using a Broadcom patent from coming in... and Verizon almost ran out phones to sell.  The President refused to intervene in an IP matter, so Verizon ended up paying a $6 per device royalty themselves (instead of Qualcomm doing it) just to import stock.

 

(Six dollars to Broadcom!  And Apple complains about even paying one dollar to Motorola.)

 

Likewise, many people are still confused about injunctions vs. FRAND abuse.  Multiple world courts have said (and STILL say) that injunctions are a fair weapon for use by any patent holder, SEP or not, if a licensee refuses to negotiate in good faith. (The judgements against Samsung so far have been when Apple was able to convince the court that they had started real negotiations.)


Edited by KDarling - 6/4/13 at 5:04pm
post #50 of 166
Here's Samesung's official response, reported on AllThingsD. How pathetic. I''ve officially joined the "No Samsung in my house" movement

“We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations,” Samsung said in a statement to AllThingsD. “Our decades of research and development in mobile technologies will continue, and we will continue to offer innovative products to consumers in the United States.”

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply
post #51 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I don't think they can appeal it. the President can overrule it, but that's the end of the line AFAIK.

They certainly can appeal this to United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  This is not over by a long shot.  They can do this even if Obama does not veto it.

post #52 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Ah. thanks for that.
Do they have to wait until the Presidential review period is over before appealing to the Fed Circuit?

No they can file an appeal right now.

post #53 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Did you read the article first?

 

Yes, I did! The issue is on the older products, so this doesn't matter - But it is the principal of things.

post #54 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I like how people keep creeping the number up. Maybe it will eventually hit the amount they should have been fined.

 

I've lost track of when that case gets revisited... Wasn't Koh supposed to re-review the amount lopped off the awarded total to possibly increase or decrease the total amount?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #55 of 166
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
I've lost track of when that case gets revisited... Wasn't Koh supposed to re-review the amount lopped off the awarded total to possibly increase or decrease the total amount?


Needs to be a different judge. irked.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #56 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

They certainly can appeal this to United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  This is not over by a long shot.  They can do this even if Obama does not veto it.

 

Yep, there's a lot of ITC decisions being appealed by all sides.  

 

I got curious and looked up the most recent stats of ITC decisions overturned by the CAFC:

 

2008 -  7%

2009 -  0%

2010 - 15%

2011 - 27%

2012 - 15%

 

Additionally, it's apparently rare for major ITC computer patent decisions to get changed.

post #57 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

I think many people don't understand that there's a difference between Apple and Samsung's patents.

Apple's patents are mainly broad, generic designs that take $0 in R&D costs.
Samsung's patents deal with REAL technological progress such as 4G LTE and wireless communication. This is why Samsung's patents are VALID while Apple's isn't, and why courts are upholding Samsung's patents while rejecting Apple's.

I think what you say about Samsung's patents is correct but I think Apple's patents are also as important. If not why copy? Theres def. value to it and it costs a lot too.
post #58 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

You're killing me. This is the best joke on this forum. I almost fell of the chair, I was laughing so hard.

Gotta give him a A for effort, it was well written, had proper grammar and spelling.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

No surprise here.  I've been repeating in my posts for months that the ITC's sole power is injunctions, and they want to keep that power.   However, this ban doesn't have a big impact, so it's also politically safe.

The last major time the ITC did this with phones was in 2007 when they banned CDMA devices using a Broadcom patent from coming in... and Verizon almost ran out phones to sell.  The President refused to intervene in an IP matter, so Verizon ended up paying a $6 per device royalty themselves (instead of Qualcomm doing it) just to import stock.

(Six dollars to Broadcom!  And Apple complains about even paying one dollar to Motorola.)

Likewise, many people are still confused about injunctions vs. FRAND abuse.  Multiple world courts have said (and STILL say) that injunctions are a fair weapon for use by any patent holder, SEP or not, if a licensee refuses to negotiate in good faith. (The judgements against Samsung so far have been when Apple was able to convince the court that they had started real negotiations.)
You're right, no surprises that you're still spouting your BS. While some courts have said injunctions can be granted over SEP's, the FACT remains the number of courts, bodies and companies who say they shouldn't far outnumber those that say its OK.

All you've been doing (as usual) is cherry picking certain rulings and implying that its a majority position when it's not. You sure you don't work for the DOJ, as that's the same thing they've been doing with Jobs quotes.

Again I ask you why you're still here? You're not fooling anyone with your garbage posts since nobody believes you anyway. Do you have a quota to full to collect payment? I just can't comprehend why you try your form of subtle trolling when you've been outed long ago.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #60 of 166
My block list isn't big enough to hold all this stupidity.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #61 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

lol. Not bad ITC. Impressed to overcome the pressures.

 

Actually this is a huge loss for Samsung. Now they have a ruling and proof of anti-competitiveness that can be added to DoJ antitrust case against Samsung.  Samsung is also being probed in the EU over this same issue.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #62 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Still waiting for that imaginary list of next-gen tech that Apple is working on.
5G - Samsung
Flexible Displays - Samsung
OLED - Samsung
Memory - Samsung
IC - Samsung
Battery - Samsung

The list goes on...

Here's Apple's take on it:
Wait for Samsung to develop all those technology, buy them in large amounts, then rebrand them so that Apple customers think Apple invented them.

The invention isn't the important part it's the implementation of inventions that really matters. So far Apple has been able to out-implement everybody. You have to at least give them credit for the ecosystem they've created.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #63 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Both Apple and Dell order tech from their suppliers and then assembles them into a product.

Dell and Apple focus on macro elements for their devices. They get to control what their devices look like, how big it is, etc. The tech comes from Samsung, LG, Japanese & Taiwanese suppliers.

 

I don't see the difference except for the branding.

 

Apple has a lot of its own IP in most of the components they use...

 

Battery

LCD

Multi-touch digitizer

CPU

ISP

SoC

Antenna

memory controller

operating system

circuit boards

power supplies

internal fans

 

...and probably many more I'm forgetting.

 

Yes, some things they do buy, just as most others do, but you misunderstand that just because Apple doesn't actually manufacture them, doesn't mean they're not Apple's IP.

 

Apple has also been known for a very long time now to partner with companies to develop technology to meet Apple's needs. The biggest partnership to date was probably with Acorn and VLSI to create the ARM CPU, which was designed for mobile, more specifically the Newton.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #64 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Here's one: Retina Display

Why was it that the Samsung display on a particular macbook model was far superior to the LG's display on the SAME macbook model?
Because the displays that came from Samsung were from Samsung's manufacturing tech while the displays that came from LG were from LG's manufacturing tech.

Face it, Apple doesn't engineer jackshit. That's Samsung's job.

Wrong, foundries =/= designing, hence why Apple can have its proprietary displays, chips, etc manufactured anywhere. Some manufactures do a better job.
post #65 of 166
Usually you guys are quick to refute what people post about Apple but no one has refuted Josh's claims.
post #66 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

I think many people don't understand that there's a difference between Apple and Samsung's patents.

Apple's patents are mainly broad, generic designs that take $0 in R&D costs.
Samsung's patents deal with REAL technological progress such as 4G LTE and wireless communication. This is why Samsung's patents are VALID while Apple's isn't, and why courts are upholding Samsung's patents while rejecting Apple's.

I needed a laugh. Thanks. Make sure you get a cashiers check from Sammy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Still waiting for that imaginary list of next-gen tech that Apple is working on.
5G - Samsung
Flexible Displays - Samsung
OLED - Samsung
Memory - Samsung
IC - Samsung
Battery - Samsung

The list goes on...

Here's Apple's take on it:
Wait for Samsung to develop all those technology, buy them in large amounts, then rebrand them so that Apple customers think Apple invented them.

This is good...the onion good. What happened was Apple time traveled to after Sammy made then GS3 and the traveled back to make the original iPhone.
post #67 of 166
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post
Usually you guys are quick to refute what people post about Apple but no one has refuted Josh's claims.


Come off it. Not only is this a complete lie (read the effing thread), only an idiot would believe what he's saying in the first place.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #68 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Face it, Apple doesn't engineer jackshit. That's Samsung's job.

Wow, you sound angry.

It's disappointing when you interject crazy language in there because I'm sure you have a good point somewhere.

post #69 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Honestly, it wouldn't take much for Apple to get Samsung's products banned.

All Apple has to do is start investing in next-gen tech so that they actually INVENT something for once.
Samsung is already on its way to building 5G infrastructure. If Apple beats Samsung to that goal post, then Apple could use their invention to block Samsung devices if Samsung build 5G devices.

5G will be developed by a host of companies, just like any standard.
post #70 of 166
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post
Wow, you sound angry.

It's disappointing when you interject crazy language in there because I'm sure you have a good point somewhere.

 

His point is "Apple has never done anything, ever, at any time, and simply steals ideas from others and lies about them with marketing to sell overpriced crap".

 

In short, he doesn't have a point.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #71 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

With Samsung outstripping Apple in demand, Samsung can be sure that their OWN devices have the demand necessary to maximize their machines' capacities.

 

Samsung is hardly outstripping Apple in demand. Samsung is merely flooding the market with devices they made from stock piles of components they manufactured for their clients that were rejected or over-produced.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #72 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Still waiting for that imaginary list of next-gen tech that Apple is working on.
5G - Samsung
Flexible Displays - Samsung
OLED - Samsung
Memory - Samsung
IC - Samsung
Battery - Samsung

The list goes on...
U
Here's Apple's take on it:
Wait for Samsung to develop all those technology, buy them in large amounts, then rebrand them so tihat Apple customers think Apple invented them.

LMAO

Samsung does not even own or control its own OS and software platform

It has no content ecosystem

Samsung will now be using Intel in its tablets. Produced from Intel plants

IC and batteries are largely commodities produced by several vendors

5G has many contributors. And, It won't be live for another 20 years at best

Who cares about flexible displays. Let's see Samsung take the lead and launch products with it

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply
post #73 of 166
Apple creates markets...

Samsung?... Mhmmmm....They follow Apple.
post #74 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Except the retina display is a trademark, not a patent, giving my argument more credence.

You apparently have no understanding of the consumer electronics-manufacturer ecosystem, do you? Nor do you even seem to understand that it's the manufacturers who do all the designing. You can't just design something and expect it to work on a manufacturer's machines. According to your logic, Dominos' ovens are able to make Papa Johns' pizzas. 
lol.gif


Each machine is specifically tailored to produce a certain output. The machines are built in mind to make the specified tech. That's the reason why it's the manufacturers who design the next-gen tech while the consumer electronics company go around to different manufacturers to find who has the tech that best fits their needs. That's how the current ecosystem works, as it is the most efficient allocation of resources.
If we go by your world, where Consumer Electronics companies like Apple and Dell design their own tech, then the manufacturers would need to build drastically different machines to accommodate for the different designs.

In your world, I suppose that construction workers are totally invent buildings, and architects have nothing to do with it right?

And Apple does have patents on retina displays, and on the software that makes it work (and not just shrink everything down).

But whatever. I mean a shill's gotta eat.
post #75 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Actually, that won't last long due to Samsung's rise to prominence as a consumer electronics company.

Although Samsung does most *cough* (all of the inventing), Samsung rarely implements their own tech into their own consumer devices, as they are also a manufacturer, meaning they need to ensure that all the output of the machines for a particular tech they've invented reach their clients. A few years back, only Apple had that prominence, so the supplies would have some form of Apple priority.
With Samsung outstripping Apple in demand, Samsung can be sure that their OWN devices have the demand necessary to maximize their machines' capacities.

Even if that's true, Apple is still Samsung's biggest client. If things keep going the way they are Samsung will have killed off their other clients/competitors. That would leave us in a world with only Apple and Samsung and frankly it's a world I would not like.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Except the retina display is a trademark, not a patent, giving my argument more credence.

You apparently have no understanding of the consumer electronics-manufacturer ecosystem, do you? Nor do you even seem to understand that it's the manufacturers who do all the designing. You can't just design something and expect it to work on a manufacturer's machines. According to your logic, Dominos' ovens are able to make Papa Johns' pizzas. 
lol.gif


Each machine is specifically tailored to produce a certain output. The machines are built in mind to make the specified tech. That's the reason why it's the manufacturers who design the next-gen tech while the consumer electronics company go around to different manufacturers to find who has the tech that best fits their needs. That's how the current ecosystem works, as it is the most efficient allocation of resources.
If we go by your world, where Consumer Electronics companies like Apple and Dell design their own tech, then the manufacturers would need to build drastically different machines to accommodate for the different designs.

By the by, my company actually contracts out work to an Asian manufacturing company. We create the designs, specify the materials, specify the equipment, etc. Pure outsourcing. But apparently the manufacturer does everything. Maybe I can fire my design team.
post #77 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Usually you guys are quick to refute what people post about Apple but no one has refuted Josh's claims.

So have at it.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #78 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

iPhone 5 sales in 1 quarter = 20 million

Galaxy S4 sales in less than 1 month = 10 million

I leave it to you to calculate which one has the higher average sales rate.

Is that a static sales rate? Does the launch month not inflate things?

How many 5's were sold in its first month?

Since Samsung doesn't actually provide official numbers, can we trust them?
post #79 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I've lost track of when that case gets revisited... Wasn't Koh supposed to re-review the amount lopped off the awarded total to possibly increase or decrease the total amount?

Koh denied Apple's requests today. The damages still stand at about $1B.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-30/apple-loses-bid-for-a-new-samsung-trial-on-trade-dress.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Honestly, it wouldn't take much for Apple to get Samsung's products banned.

 

All Apple has to do is start investing in next-gen tech so that they actually INVENT something for once.

Samsung is already on its way to building 5G infrastructure. If Apple beats Samsung to that goal post, then Apple could use their invention to block Samsung devices if Samsung build 5G devices.

 

Industry standards come from a host of companies, not one. Samsung may work on an aspect of the 5G standard, but they won't own it. Furthermore, IP is only used within a standard when the IP owner agrees that it will be made available to anyone who wants it for a reasonable licensing fee. Otherwise, that IP would be replaced with something else. That's the point of standards bodies and FRAND. Apple actually owns IP in many different standards, a lot of companies do.

 

I'll tell you what, if you want to have even an inkling of credibility, try looking up something Apple invented, so we at least know that you're not ignorant and know everything there is about Apple.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC issues US import ban on older iPhones and iPads for infringement of Samsung patents [u]